Posted
by
timothy
on Friday October 31, 2014 @07:24PM
from the public-records-are-public dept.

An anonymous reader writes I received some interesting mail this week from the House Majority PAC. First, a "voter report card" postcard telling me my voting record was "excellent" (I'm a good citizen!), but also letting me know that they "plan to update this report card after the election to see whether you voted". OK, so one of the Democratic Party's super PACs want me to vote, but it seems to be something of an attempt at intimidation. Today, I received a letter in which they really put the pressure on. Here are some excerpts: "Who you vote for is secret. But whether or not you vote is public record. Our organization monitors turnout in your neighborhood, and we are disappointed that many of your neighbors do not always exercise their right to vote." So why contact me instead of them? Voting is a civic duty, but it isn't illegal to abstain. That's my neighbors' business, not mine. It's one way of expressing dissatisfaction, isn't it? And if there are no candidates you wish to vote for, then why should you vote for someone you don't want? But Big Brother PAC has other ideas: "We will be reviewing the Camden County [NJ] official voting records after the upcoming election to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not." The letter is signed "Joe Fox Election day Coordinator". So what happens if I don't vote? Well, at least I got a scare this Halloween. Are PACs using similar tactics in other states?

I live in the same city with the Koch bros. Festivities begin in the Spring when the activists from all over flock to protest the Kochs at their black glass and steel building. There's camping in a nearby nature park, games, food, sex, pot and chickadeer parading in skimpy springwear. Keep an eye on the media for this extravaganza and bring the kids!

"Formed in April 2011, House Majority PACâ(TM)s goal was to answer the barrage of GOP outside spending and ensure that never again would groups funded by Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the like be able to drown out Democratic candidates."

I love how politicians roll out the same crappy platform every 2-4 years and try to intimidate you into thinking the world will end if you don't vote. In the US where you basically have two choices and in Canada where we have more but each crappy in their own way perhaps the best way to save the world is to not provide any stroke jobs to any politicians ego. We need an option on ballots that says: "You are all crazy I want direct democracy".

If the voter records are public information (which seems odd to me actually, but let's assume this for now since TFS said so), then your lawsuit would be baseless. Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public. It's when private information is released that you have grounds to file a lawsuit for damages.

As I said, it is recorded, not that it was "public information". And, like I said, they are having trouble with vote buying here so I really don't see them releasing that specific info.Probably a good reason that they got my info all wrong.

If it wasn't public information how could we trust the election results? Seriously.

If the media can get the entire voter list, and a list of the people who showed up, and compare that to the list of total ballots cast, it's much harder for local elected officials (And in the US almost everyone involved in running an election is not only an elected official, they're partisan. No Republican will ever win the Detroit City Clerkship.) to simply make up vote totals.

A list of who voted does need to exist to some extent. Otherwise it becomes too easily possible for some entity to start casting votes for other people or dead people without much risk of getting caught; and given the history of this country it's probably happened in a place or two from time to time.

Perhaps that are other solutions that can be used to mitigate this, but given we're still using a first past the post system that's probably quite far beyond us. This is just the other side of such records be

A list of who voted absolutely must be maintained as an essential component of election integrity. In Virginia, you identify yourself, and observers from both parties sitting at the table note your name. They mark it in the Big Listing Book, and then you vote. So both parties know whether you showed up -- and it IS public information. The bonus intimidation seems to be a recent development, and not at all an enhancement.

The problem is that with the US system, you cannot vote blank. In the past, you could at least make a deliberate misvote, e.g. by punching way too many holes or making way too many stamps, but with electronic voting this is no longer an option. That makes it a problem, because the only way to vote "none of the above" is then to not go to the polls.

But then again, the US system has enough problems with its election system already, with the requirement to have to register beforehand or be turned down at ele

In central Pennsylvania you can vote blank. The machines are the eSlate model and you can just keep pressing next and hit 'cast ballot' at the end. Registering beforehand makes sense; it's no different than any other governmental form. The ID card part is wrong however, since you can't use it for anything but voting, it can't be done where you register, and it treats voters as guilty of fraud until proven innocent by a card.

In every election I have participated in (which is many) in 2 states this has been completely untrue.

You walk in, sign your name and write your address, and get a ballot. You then get a ballot, and you can feel free to turn the entire thing in untouched and are still recorded as having voted.

I don't know much about electronic voting, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't believe you actually have to cast votes any more than on a punch ballot. Why the hell would you want to "misvote"? Just don't vote

I recently got to vote here in Sweden, and I'm not even a citizen. I didn't even know I was eligible until the card from the election board showed up in the post.

I thought this had to be some sort of mistake, but I was informed by the elections people that here, as in many European countries, non-citizens who are legal residents may vote in local elections for their listed town/district, but not for the national legislature. So I got to vote for kommun and län (basically municipal and provincial) offices as well as candidates for seats in Stockholms Landsting, but not for the Riksdag or the EU Parliament.

I had planned on voting for the Pirate Party but their campaign posters were so annoying, faux-cutesy, and condescending that I voted for the Social Democrats instead. Would've voted Communist just for spite but they weren't running any candidates in my district.

A list of who voted does need to exist to some extent. Otherwise it becomes too easily possible for some entity to start casting votes for other people or dead people without much risk of getting caught

I agree with the record being public; However, there should be a terms of use. It should not be simply freely available for all uses without restriction --- it should be available for on-premises review by any member of the public who signs an agreement but no note-taking, information extraction, dissem

It's public information. The local city clerk has records of everyone who voted in every election, and records of who is registered. Both lists are available to anyone who asks for a nominal fee. This is how political campaigns build their databases.

Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public.

It depends on context. It is possible that there are ways they could republish details gathered from public records which would be damaging.

For example; it may be technically public, however, individuals do not ordinarily disseminate the information. If their actions "advertised" or made the information more easily accessible, then it would still be a damaging intrusion.

Yes, voter records are public information. I believe they list your name, address, DOB, your registered party, precinct information, and date you voted. It's been a while since I've personally seen them, so I may have missed something.

It may be "intimidation", but it's stupid. Any pol who forces someone to vote who dislikes the pol now because they felt they were forced to vote is shooting themselves in the foot. And simply turning up to vote in this country means very little in terms of whether you participated in an election. You can spoil your ballot. Or you can put in a vote for dogcatcher, and ignore the Federal races altogether. Or whatever.

Me, for myself, I'll probably be voting for Governor this year, albeit

Republicans *and* Democrats are worthless fucking scumbags who want to infringe upon our fundamental liberties. Voting for either of them reveals that you don't care about the constitution or freedom, are actively opposed to both, and/or are profoundly ignorant.

The fact that most voters still vote for candidates from The One Party is nothing short of depressing. Both are responsible for the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, the Patriot Act, countless unjust wars, protest permits, anti-mask laws, anti-privac

hoplophobian. A neologism coined in a pathetic attempt by gun nutters to frame people as "mental" who have the temerity to point out that (a) guns kill people and (b) most civilised countries get along just fine without people carrying guns around all the time.

Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

Voting does not have the same level of impact. This is obvious to everyone who is paying attention. All the candidates lie, and all wind up responding to political force rather than to what is right. So, those who pay attention simply apply the sort of political force that actually moves politicians, and they don't bother with voting.

Why are they so interested in voter turnout? Mostly because it perpetuates the illusion that voting actually matters, and keeps poor people like us from bothering with the lobbies.

Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.

The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

Or the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, the Patriot Act, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, and the countless other things our government does that violates the constitution.

But gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are not irrelevant. They're important, but not the *only* important issues.

Actually, it depends.If you believe that the government has a right to 'manage' social and cultural issues, then sure, gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are all 'in-play'.

Personally, I'd like the US government just start by performing their basic fucking functions - create a budget*, pay the bills**, get basic fundamental responsibilities accomplished*** - before they spend their time trying to 'manage' cultural issues.*http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/03/22/pbs-congress-hasn-t-p

Gay marriage is about who should get tax payer dollars, or who pays less in taxes.

Gay marriage is about gay people having the same right to get married as anyone else. That includes any benefits that marriage might have, but marriage is also an emotional thing for a lot of people.

Abortion, Makes people feel bad, but in reality, dose not hurt anyone else.

If you mean that it's the person's choice to get one, then yes.

Inequality, most of it is made up thing so a politician to get elected by claiming other side is for inequalityRacism, over used and often not true. The housing bust would not have been so bad if people were not calling Bush a racist for trying to end the subprime mortgages.

Sometimes it is indeed nonsense. But sometimes it's not.

People don't care about the more important issues because the media ignores it, because putting attention to them would hurt the Democrat party who they work for.

Partially correct. It would hurt *both* parties, since both parties are filled with freedom-hating scumbags who constantly trample over the constitution.

C'mon, you really need a piece of paper from the government to prove... what?

It's about having the same rights under the law. If the government recognizes heterosexual marriages, it should recognize same sex marriages. Religious nonsense shouldn't prevent that from happening. Plus, in many states, there are still benefits to marriage you can't get elsewhere. It's also an emotional thing for many people.

I do think that marriage shouldn't be the *only* way to get those legal benefits, though.

I mean, would two non-gay roommates end up in a "common law" marriage now if they live together for long enough?

Common law marriages are idiotic to begin with. They shouldn't assume that just because you li

I mean, would two non-gay roommates end up in a "common law" marriage now if they live together for long enough?

Common law marriages are idiotic to begin with. They shouldn't assume that just because you lived together with someone for X amount of time, that you're together.

That's a bit of an urban legend. The first requirement for common law marriage is that you hold yourself out as husband and wife over an extended period of time - that you go around introducing her as "my wife" and she says things like "my husband bought...". This indicates that the couple has decided that they are married.

The second requirement is that they live together as husband and wife. Examples of living as husband and wife include things like having a joint checking account or filling taxes as "married".

Note that BOTH requirements have to be met - the couple has to go around saying they are married (proving they've decided to be married) AND they have to actually do so - actually do the things married people do.If a couple decides to be married and they do so for a long time, the court will simply recognize what already is true. So for example when one dies, their spouse will have rights to the property, because they did in fact live their lives as a marriage - not as roommates.

The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

That's not true, and it's a tired trope I keep hearing over and over. Voters do care, but they care about different things. Some people care more about sociological issues, whereas others care more about socioeconomic issues.

There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters.

Which country is this?Here in the US, their main concern appears to be pleasing the corporations that contributed money so they could fund their smear campaigns and vote buying.They want to please the shepherds, not the sheep.

Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.

The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

No.

Lobbies buy ads that tell YOU what you should care about. You then vote for the politician that they put money into.

Most people do their political research by watching TV ads, so this approach works well.

Lobbies buy ads that tell YOU what you should care about. You then vote for the politician that they put money into. Most people do their political research by watching TV ads, so this approach works well.

Yes, and between the lobbies that buy ads and the politican that does your bidding is the voter, an autonomous individual with free will. Hence, it is not the lobbies that decide what politicians do, it's voters.

It took a massive amount of self control not to yell at some poor shleb who wanted to volunteer or is just getting paid for a job. They wanted 500 bucks. No I am not giving you a thin dime. If you can not manage the millions the koch brothers coughed up why should worry about it?

I am only voting against my current senator because she couldnt be bothered to read the laws she was passing and voted a 95% party line vote. My congress critter

Before the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial primary, three political scientists isolated a group of voters and mailed them copies of their voting histories, listing the elections in which they participated and those they missed. Included were their neighborsâ(TM) voting histories, too, along with a warning: after the polls closed, everyone would get an updated set.

After the primary, the academics examined the voter rolls and were startled by the potency of peer pressure as a motivational tool. The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured.

Malchow, a 58-year-old former Mississippi securities lawyer who managed Al Goreâ(TM)s first Senate campaign and went on to start a direct-mail firm, read the academicsâ(TM) study and wanted to put the device to work. But he had trouble persuading his firmâ(TM)s clients â" which over the years have included the Democratic National Committee and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. â" to incorporate such a tactic into their get-out-the-vote programs. All feared a backlash from citizens who might regard the mailer as a threat from someone seeking their vote.

Then, as New Jersey prepared to elect its governor last fall [in 2010], Malchow experimented with less ominous language, an idea he adopted from the Fordham political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The article then goes on to mostly talk about liberal attempts to study voter behavior so that they can shape opinions and get people to the polls.

The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured./quote.It would get me to the polls, too. Maybe not with the intended effect, however.

Why would anyone care? In Australia it's illegal to not vote (you get fined if you don't get your name signed off in a voting booth) yet over 5% of the population don't vote and another 5% cast donkey votes (blank or scribbles as protest). That's well over 1 million people who despite it being illegal still don't vote.
It beats me why we even need elections. Statistical methods can get us a pretty close result with small samples, and either you end up with 1 of 2 of the same idiot.
The US spent over $6B on

You can do it only in the neighborhoods that lean in your direction, or to voters who are affiliated with the party you want to see win. Naturally you wouldn't harass the other side to vote. If you register as an independent, no one's likely to bother you, since they're not sure which way you'll go.

If you live in a GOP-leaning precinct, you're in a few conservative leaning groups (say the NRA and a Megachurch), then everyone will assume your Republican. If you live in a Democratic-leaning precinct and you're in a union or other left-wing group they will assume you're a Democrat. It's not like the UAW or NRA is going to refuse to give their allied political party a membership list. The Parties also have detailed subscriber lists from numerous publication

As well as those "register to vote the day of the election" deals. If you can't be bothered to pre-register to vote, or need to be pestered to vote, then you probably get 100% of your info on candidate's and issues from the mailers and TV/radio commercials. In other words, you've just digested a load of garbage and have nothing with which to make an informed choice. Uninformed voters are assholes, keep them out of the voting booth.

I'm fine with you voting in a way I think is repugnant, as long as you've done a bit of research and actually have a reason for voting the way you do.

As well as those "register to vote the day of the election" deals. If you can't be bothered to pre-register to vote, or need to be pestered to vote, then you probably get 100% of your info on candidate's and issues from the mailers and TV/radio commercials.

I voted in a municipal election in Toronto, Canada earlier this week. Not on the voter's list? No problem--you can register at one of the city clerk's offices. There's five of them, serving a population of 2.6 million people. Oh, and they're open from 8:30am to 4:30pm, Monday to Friday. So that should be a snap to get to, as long as you don't have a full-time job, or a child to care for, or mobility issues. (You don't mind choosing between a couple of extra bus fares and eating lunch, do you?)

I followed the campaign closely, I was aware of the major issues of the day (as well as the minor issues that didn't get nearly enough coverage), I had strongly-held opinions based in thorough, extended research--and I registered to vote on the day of the election.

The notion that all people who didn't register in advance are somehow lazy, unworthy, and incompetent is canard that punishes the working poor, the single parents, the handicapped. Looking in from the outside, it's apparent that it's one piece of a larger Republican campaign to disenfranchise as many Democratic-leaning voters as possible. It's a story that is propagated by Fox News, the viewers of which are exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You don't mind choosing between a couple of extra bus fares and eating lunch, do you?

I don't know about Toronto's public transit, but even in Fort Wayne's underprovisioned system [fwcitilink.com] (60 minute headway and no service at all at night, on Saturday evenings, or on Sundays or major holidays), riders can buy a pass for unmetered rides within a four and a half week period.

Better than Texas, where you have to pay money to vote (the mandated ID must be free to be legal, but it's ok for it to require other paperwork that costs money, so long as the ID itself is free). http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]

Seriously, why and how did this ever get posted? "I got political material in my mailbox in an election year", big deal. How is this stuff that matters or even news? Yeah if you vote is recorded, as is jury duty and car registrations. So what?

But I agree, there is really no substance to this post. Hell, in many countries, Australia for instance, voting is mandatory. It's a crime not to. (You don't have to vote for anyone, but you must turn your ballot in.)

But heaven forfend that anyone be asked why they didn't vote in an election, that's so.. so... so! A first-world problem to be truly outraged about.

Libertarian leaning republicans? Who? Most of them support the NSA, the TSA, other nonsense that violates the constitution, or preemptive warfare. Same with democrats, of course. But where are these libertarian leaning republicans? They all seem like authoritarian scumbags that want to give corporations infinite power over the people to me.

Clearly this person registered as a Repub (which is a public record) and they want you to spread the word. The Repubs need recruits in NJ. I live in Virginia where you don't have to declare a party. They try to figure out who their friends are by sending out letters purporting to be a "survey". They have a bar coded serial number on them. It has questions that are the usual drivel such as "Do you believe in socialized medicine?" I just cut out the barcode and send back the post paid envelope with "F

The summary starts by mentioning the House Majority Pac, and then segues to a claim a Democratic Pac wants to push people to vote. The House is, of course, where the Republicans have the majority, not the Democrats. Both sides aren't doing it, one side is.

It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."

If there's no candidates that you want to vote for, there's almost always a candidate you want to vote against. If I don't like any candidate, I put my vote behind the least objectionable one to reduce the chances of the more objectionable ones getting in. It may not help, but at least I'm not just handing the keys over to the guy I hate most.

And in my book it might not be a bad thing to see a little peer pressure applied. I know a lot of loud complainers about how bad the government and politicians are who

There was a study done a few years ago where the researchers found that if they simply sent people a grade showing how their voting compared to their neighbors, and then assured them that they'd do a followup study afterwards, they could increase voter turnout by something like 30% I can't remember who it was or anything...

I never saw it amount to much until this year. There's a governors race here in Wisconsin and the Democratic challenger Marry Burk is specifically and very heavily targeting women. They'r

They may not "know" how you vote, but rest assured they would not send you such a letter unless they thought you'd vote the way they'd like you to. If they can get you to influence other votes, all the better.

If there are no candidates you wish to vote for, then why should you vote for someone you don't want?

Well don't vote for someone you don't want.

But don't just stay at home. If you don't vote at all, you will be interpreted as lazy or disinterested or failing to uphold your civic duty. If you drop a blank ballot, and sign it, that sends a message.

Although I loath the right wing there really is no left wing to vote for at all. The US needs some radical changes and no politician is willing to do a single thing that really helps. For example we need to limit reproduction and stop immigration completely or we will suffer deep poverty and ruin. The very last thing we need is growth. We need quality and we need a highly educated population.
My vote will do nothing to improve anything. The ignorant masses will continue to have babies t

Nothing new here; University of Wisconsin law prof and blogger Ann Althouse related the (apparently quite similar) mailings she received during the 2012 campaign. Those apparently worked, so it isn't surprising that the Dems would try the same dirty tricks again.

They are getting your information from google and facebook who volunteer the database of personal information they have compiled on you.

I've also been harrassed by democratic party activists in real life. They even used a few of my old friend's they converted.

I'll be honest, I might be receptive to a handful of their political ideas, but I feel like I live in a police state where I have had people I used to trust spy on me for soley political purposes.

If this wasn't bad, its the language some of these people use when on other social networking, and other sites with political discussion, they are the first to deviate from the issues. They use loaded language, and repeat claims that they want to lock up opposition. They are very suspicous, and even the slightest deviation from their platform they will attack, in every offense way up to, but exlcuding violence to punish people who step out of line. if you are to the "right" of their position, your a "republican agent", to the "left", a "dangerous extremist", of both which they openly declare their desire to arrest and harrass by any means neccary.

They are fairly comfortable with doublespeak, and have one set of values in public, another in private, and the two get further everytime I run into one.

I'm not a radical because I want to be, or because I think its cool, or any romantic notion. I am a radical because I have no other options really. I am not a radical because I encourage political violence, or spying, or malice, but because I am opposed to it. I am not a radical because I am an extremist, but because I'm not an extremist. I am a radical because its the only way I could really be honest about myself, and the political system of the United States of America. The system has failed. We have a paper democracy, but the net effect is at least one major party(potentially two, I never had any real run ins with the republicans), has their own private gestapo. They use language like war, spies, double agents, and most important "enemy" to describe the opposition in a supposedly democratic system. Most of these people are white privledged hipsters who never been to war, and many if not most would never hack in the army.(I have, I came back home to this.).

We are not free. We do not have in effect open elections. We don't have rights, we have privledges the government can wave at any time under either "homeland security", or "the war on drugs", even if we are not terrorists or drug dealers.

Disagreed. While not voting is still an active decision, it's not a no-vote. It's a make-everyone-else's-vote-more-powerful vote. Not voting magnifies the group which decides to vote.

The right decision would be to vote for a write-in or a throw-away. You still vote, and if enough people do that in elections where a majority is required, a run-off election might be the end result. This is the preferred outcome as it forces all leading candidates to restate their case and take actual voting metrics into account, potentially changing which groups are catered.

He won't ever be eligible.All the man has to do is get him convicted for something in absentia, and he loses his right to run for office as well as his right to vote. Or toss him in jail as soon as he sets foot on US soil, and he'd also become ineligible.

It's nice when you have a system where you can weed out unwanted political figures that easily.Not very democratic, though. Which is why voting and running for election are inalienable rights in most democracies.

He won't ever be eligible.All the man has to do is get him convicted for something in absentia, and he loses his right to run for office as well as his right to vote. Or toss him in jail as soon as he sets foot on US soil, and he'd also become ineligible.

It's nice when you have a system where you can weed out unwanted political figures that easily.Not very democratic, though. Which is why voting and running for election are inalienable rights in most democracies.

He's a bit more than an "unwanted political figure". You're glossing over the fact that he released tons of classified government information. I'm not going to argue whether it was right or wrong, but using Snowden to support an argument of a broken or corrupt election process is quite a stretch.

Felonies can prevent you from voting, but they can't prevent you from being a Presidential candidate. The only rules on that are in the Constitution, and the Founders didn't bother to include a ban on felons holding office.

Plenty of people in the government swear to defend the constitution, and yet that doesn't stop them from violating it. A real patriot would tell The People about the government's treacherous/immoral actions, as Snowden did.

Submitter must be some uneducated PC technician fuckwit to live in that ghetto...

You may be unaware of how big Camden County is. Points for harshing on Camden (city) but full penalty and three-game suspension for reading comprehension failure and then calling the submitter names about his intelligence because of your fail.